Pattern Syntax
In this section, we gather all the syntax valid in patterns and discuss why and when you might want to use each one.
Matching Literals
As you saw in Chapter 6, you can match patterns against literals directly. The following code gives some examples:
fn main() { let x = 1; match x { 1 => println!("one"), 2 => println!("two"), 3 => println!("three"), _ => println!("anything"), } }
This code prints one because the value in x is 1. This syntax is useful
when you want your code to take an action if it gets a particular concrete
value.
Matching Named Variables
Named variables are irrefutable patterns that match any value, and we’ve used
them many times in the book. However, there is a complication when you use
named variables in match expressions. Because match starts a new scope,
variables declared as part of a pattern inside the match expression will
shadow those with the same name outside the match construct, as is the case
with all variables. In Listing 18-11, we declare a variable named x with the
value Some(5) and a variable y with the value 10. We then create a
match expression on the value x. Look at the patterns in the match arms and
println! at the end, and try to figure out what the code will print before
running this code or reading further.
Filename: src/main.rs
fn main() { let x = Some(5); let y = 10; match x { Some(50) => println!("Got 50"), Some(y) => println!("Matched, y = {y}"), _ => println!("Default case, x = {:?}", x), } println!("at the end: x = {:?}, y = {y}", x); }
Listing 18-11: A match expression with an arm that
introduces a shadowed variable y
Let’s walk through what happens when the match expression runs. The pattern
in the first match arm doesn’t match the defined value of x, so the code
continues.
The pattern in the second match arm introduces a new variable named y that
will match any value inside a Some value. Because we’re in a new scope inside
the match expression, this is a new y variable, not the y we declared at
the beginning with the value 10. This new y binding will match any value
inside a Some, which is what we have in x. Therefore, this new y binds to
the inner value of the Some in x. That value is 5, so the expression for
that arm executes and prints Matched, y = 5.
If x had been a None value instead of Some(5), the patterns in the first
two arms wouldn’t have matched, so the value would have matched to the
underscore. We didn’t introduce the x variable in the pattern of the
underscore arm, so the x in the expression is still the outer x that hasn’t
been shadowed. In this hypothetical case, the match would print Default case, x = None.
When the match expression is done, its scope ends, and so does the scope of
the inner y. The last println! produces at the end: x = Some(5), y = 10.
To create a match expression that compares the values of the outer x and
y, rather than introducing a shadowed variable, we would need to use a match
guard conditional instead. We’ll talk about match guards later in the “Extra
Conditionals with Match Guards” section.
Multiple Patterns
In match expressions, you can match multiple patterns using the | syntax,
which is the pattern or operator. For example, in the following code we match
the value of x against the match arms, the first of which has an or option,
meaning if the value of x matches either of the values in that arm, that
arm’s code will run:
fn main() { let x = 1; match x { 1 | 2 => println!("one or two"), 3 => println!("three"), _ => println!("anything"), } }
This code prints one or two.
Matching Ranges of Values with ..=
The ..= syntax allows us to match to an inclusive range of values. In the
following code, when a pattern matches any of the values within the given
range, that arm will execute:
fn main() { let x = 5; match x { 1..=5 => println!("one through five"), _ => println!("something else"), } }
If x is 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, the first arm will match. This syntax is more
convenient for multiple match values than using the | operator to express the
same idea; if we were to use | we would have to specify 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5.
Specifying a range is much shorter, especially if we want to match, say, any
number between 1 and 1,000!
The compiler checks that the range isn’t empty at compile time, and because the
only types for which Rust can tell if a range is empty or not are char and
numeric values, ranges are only allowed with numeric or char values.
Here is an example using ranges of char values:
fn main() { let x = 'c'; match x { 'a'..='j' => println!("early ASCII letter"), 'k'..='z' => println!("late ASCII letter"), _ => println!("something else"), } }
Rust can tell that 'c' is within the first pattern’s range and prints early ASCII letter.
Destructuring to Break Apart Values
We can also use patterns to destructure structs, enums, and tuples to use different parts of these values. Let’s walk through each value.
Destructuring Structs
Listing 18-12 shows a Point struct with two fields, x and y, that we can
break apart using a pattern with a let statement.
Filename: src/main.rs
struct Point { x: i32, y: i32, } fn main() { let p = Point { x: 0, y: 7 }; let Point { x: a, y: b } = p; assert_eq!(0, a); assert_eq!(7, b); }
Listing 18-12: Destructuring a struct’s fields into separate variables
This code creates the variables a and b that match the values of the x
and y fields of the p struct. This example shows that the names of the
variables in the pattern don’t have to match the field names of the struct.
However, it’s common to match the variable names to the field names to make it
easier to remember which variables came from which fields. Because of this
common usage, and because writing let Point { x: x, y: y } = p; contains a
lot of duplication, Rust has a shorthand for patterns that match struct fields:
you only need to list the name of the struct field, and the variables created
from the pattern will have the same names. Listing 18-13 behaves in the same
way as the code in Listing 18-12, but the variables created in the let
pattern are x and y instead of a and b.
Filename: src/main.rs
struct Point { x: i32, y: i32, } fn main() { let p = Point { x: 0, y: 7 }; let Point { x, y } = p; assert_eq!(0, x); assert_eq!(7, y); }
Listing 18-13: Destructuring struct fields using struct field shorthand
This code creates the variables x and y that match the x and y fields
of the p variable. The outcome is that the variables x and y contain the
values from the p struct.
We can also destructure with literal values as part of the struct pattern rather than creating variables for all the fields. Doing so allows us to test some of the fields for particular values while creating variables to destructure the other fields.
In Listing 18-14, we have a match expression that separates Point values
into three cases: points that lie directly on the x axis (which is true when
y = 0), on the y axis (x = 0), or neither.
Filename: src/main.rs
struct Point { x: i32, y: i32, } fn main() { let p = Point { x: 0, y: 7 }; match p { Point { x, y: 0 } => println!("On the x axis at {x}"), Point { x: 0, y } => println!("On the y axis at {y}"), Point { x, y } => { println!("On neither axis: ({x}, {y})"); } } }
Listing 18-14: Destructuring and matching literal values in one pattern
The first arm will match any point that lies on the x axis by specifying that
the y field matches if its value matches the literal 0. The pattern still
creates an x variable that we can use in the code for this arm.
Similarly, the second arm matches any point on the y axis by specifying that
the x field matches if its value is 0 and creates a variable y for the
value of the y field. The third arm doesn’t specify any literals, so it
matches any other Point and creates variables for both the x and y fields.
In this example, the value p matches the second arm by virtue of x
containing a 0, so this code will print On the y axis at 7.
Remember that a match expression stops checking arms once it has found the
first matching pattern, so even though Point { x: 0, y: 0} is on the x axis
and the y axis, this code would only print On the x axis at 0.
Destructuring Enums
We've destructured enums in this book (for example, Listing 6-5 in Chapter 6),
but haven’t yet explicitly discussed that the pattern to destructure an enum
corresponds to the way the data stored within the enum is defined. As an
example, in Listing 18-15 we use the Message enum from Listing 6-2 and write
a match with patterns that will destructure each inner value.
Filename: src/main.rs
enum Message { Quit, Move { x: i32, y: i32 }, Write(String), ChangeColor(i32, i32, i32), } fn main() { let msg = Message::ChangeColor(0, 160, 255); match msg { Message::Quit => { println!("The Quit variant has no data to destructure."); } Message::Move { x, y } => { println!( "Move in the x direction {x} and in the y direction {y}" ); } Message::Write(text) => { println!("Text message: {text}"); } Message::ChangeColor(r, g, b) => println!( "Change the color to red {r}, green {g}, and blue {b}", ), } }
Listing 18-15: Destructuring enum variants that hold different kinds of values
This code will print Change the color to red 0, green 160, and blue 255. Try
changing the value of msg to see the code from the other arms run.
For enum variants without any data, like Message::Quit, we can’t destructure
the value any further. We can only match on the literal Message::Quit value,
and no variables are in that pattern.
For struct-like enum variants, such as Message::Move, we can use a pattern
similar to the pattern we specify to match structs. After the variant name, we
place curly brackets and then list the fields with variables so we break apart
the pieces to use in the code for this arm. Here we use the shorthand form as
we did in Listing 18-13.
For tuple-like enum variants, like Message::Write that holds a tuple with one
element and Message::ChangeColor that holds a tuple with three elements, the
pattern is similar to the pattern we specify to match tuples. The number of
variables in the pattern must match the number of elements in the variant we’re
matching.
Destructuring Nested Structs and Enums
So far, our examples have all been matching structs or enums one level deep,
but matching can work on nested items too! For example, we can refactor the
code in Listing 18-15 to support RGB and HSV colors in the ChangeColor
message, as shown in Listing 18-16.
enum Color { Rgb(i32, i32, i32), Hsv(i32, i32, i32), } enum Message { Quit, Move { x: i32, y: i32 }, Write(String), ChangeColor(Color), } fn main() { let msg = Message::ChangeColor(Color::Hsv(0, 160, 255)); match msg { Message::ChangeColor(Color::Rgb(r, g, b)) => { println!("Change color to red {r}, green {g}, and blue {b}"); } Message::ChangeColor(Color::Hsv(h, s, v)) => println!( "Change color to hue {h}, saturation {s}, value {v}" ), _ => (), } }
Listing 18-16: Matching on nested enums
The pattern of the first arm in the match expression matches a
Message::ChangeColor enum variant that contains a Color::Rgb variant; then
the pattern binds to the three inner i32 values. The pattern of the second
arm also matches a Message::ChangeColor enum variant, but the inner enum
matches Color::Hsv instead. We can specify these complex conditions in one
match expression, even though two enums are involved.
Destructuring Structs and Tuples
We can mix, match, and nest destructuring patterns in even more complex ways. The following example shows a complicated destructure where we nest structs and tuples inside a tuple and destructure all the primitive values out:
fn main() { struct Point { x: i32, y: i32, } let ((feet, inches), Point { x, y }) = ((3, 10), Point { x: 3, y: -10 }); }
This code lets us break complex types into their component parts so we can use the values we’re interested in separately.
Destructuring with patterns is a convenient way to use pieces of values, such as the value from each field in a struct, separately from each other.
Ignoring Values in a Pattern
You’ve seen that it’s sometimes useful to ignore values in a pattern, such as
in the last arm of a match, to get a catchall that doesn’t actually do
anything but does account for all remaining possible values. There are a few
ways to ignore entire values or parts of values in a pattern: using the _
pattern (which you’ve seen), using the _ pattern within another pattern,
using a name that starts with an underscore, or using .. to ignore remaining
parts of a value. Let’s explore how and why to use each of these patterns.
Ignoring an Entire Value with _
We’ve used the underscore as a wildcard pattern that will match any value but
not bind to the value. This is especially useful as the last arm in a match
expression, but we can also use it in any pattern, including function
parameters, as shown in Listing 18-17.
Filename: src/main.rs
fn foo(_: i32, y: i32) { println!("This code only uses the y parameter: {}", y); } fn main() { foo(3, 4); }
Listing 18-17: Using _ in a function signature
This code will completely ignore the value 3 passed as the first argument,
and will print This code only uses the y parameter: 4.
In most cases when you no longer need a particular function parameter, you would change the signature so it doesn’t include the unused parameter. Ignoring a function parameter can be especially useful in cases when, for example, you're implementing a trait when you need a certain type signature but the function body in your implementation doesn’t need one of the parameters. You then avoid getting a compiler warning about unused function parameters, as you would if you used a name instead.
Ignoring Parts of a Value with a Nested _
We can also use _ inside another pattern to ignore just part of a value, for
example, when we want to test for only part of a value but have no use for the
other parts in the corresponding code we want to run. Listing 18-18 shows code
responsible for managing a setting’s value. The business requirements are that
the user should not be allowed to overwrite an existing customization of a
setting but can unset the setting and give it a value if it is currently unset.
fn main() { let mut setting_value = Some(5); let new_setting_value = Some(10); match (setting_value, new_setting_value) { (Some(_), Some(_)) => { println!("Can't overwrite an existing customized value"); } _ => { setting_value = new_setting_value; } } println!("setting is {:?}", setting_value); }
Listing 18-18: Using an underscore within patterns that
match Some variants when we don’t need to use the value inside the
Some
This code will print Can't overwrite an existing customized value and then
setting is Some(5). In the first match arm, we don’t need to match on or use
the values inside either Some variant, but we do need to test for the case
when setting_value and new_setting_value are the Some variant. In that
case, we print the reason for not changing setting_value, and it doesn’t get
changed.
In all other cases (if either setting_value or new_setting_value are
None) expressed by the _ pattern in the second arm, we want to allow
new_setting_value to become setting_value.
We can also use underscores in multiple places within one pattern to ignore particular values. Listing 18-19 shows an example of ignoring the second and fourth values in a tuple of five items.
fn main() { let numbers = (2, 4, 8, 16, 32); match numbers { (first, _, third, _, fifth) => { println!("Some numbers: {first}, {third}, {fifth}") } } }
Listing 18-19: Ignoring multiple parts of a tuple
This code will print Some numbers: 2, 8, 32, and the values 4 and 16 will be
ignored.
Ignoring an Unused Variable by Starting Its Name with _
If you create a variable but don’t use it anywhere, Rust will usually issue a warning because an unused variable could be a bug. However, sometimes it’s useful to be able to create a variable you won’t use yet, such as when you’re prototyping or just starting a project. In this situation, you can tell Rust not to warn you about the unused variable by starting the name of the variable with an underscore. In Listing 18-20, we create two unused variables, but when we compile this code, we should only get a warning about one of them.
Filename: src/main.rs
fn main() { let _x = 5; let y = 10; }
Listing 18-20: Starting a variable name with an underscore to avoid getting unused variable warnings
Here we get a warning about not using the variable y, but we don’t get a
warning about not using _x.
Note that there is a subtle difference between using only _ and using a name
that starts with an underscore. The syntax _x still binds the value to the
variable, whereas _ doesn’t bind at all. To show a case where this
distinction matters, Listing 18-21 will provide us with an error.
fn main() {
let s = Some(String::from("Hello!"));
if let Some(_s) = s {
println!("found a string");
}
println!("{:?}", s);
}
Listing 18-21: An unused variable starting with an underscore still binds the value, which might take ownership of the value
We’ll receive an error because the s value will still be moved into _s,
which prevents us from using s again. However, using the underscore by itself
doesn’t ever bind to the value. Listing 18-22 will compile without any errors
because s doesn’t get moved into _.
fn main() { let s = Some(String::from("Hello!")); if let Some(_) = s { println!("found a string"); } println!("{:?}", s); }
Listing 18-22: Using an underscore does not bind the value
This code works just fine because we never bind s to anything; it isn’t moved.
Ignoring Remaining Parts of a Value with ..
With values that have many parts, we can use the .. syntax to use specific
parts and ignore the rest, avoiding the need to list underscores for each
ignored value. The .. pattern ignores any parts of a value that we haven’t
explicitly matched in the rest of the pattern. In Listing 18-23, we have a
Point struct that holds a coordinate in three-dimensional space. In the
match expression, we want to operate only on the x coordinate and ignore
the values in the y and z fields.
fn main() { struct Point { x: i32, y: i32, z: i32, } let origin = Point { x: 0, y: 0, z: 0 }; match origin { Point { x, .. } => println!("x is {}", x), } }
Listing 18-23: Ignoring all fields of a Point except
for x by using ..
We list the x value and then just include the .. pattern. This is quicker
than having to list y: _ and z: _, particularly when we’re working with
structs that have lots of fields in situations where only one or two fields are
relevant.
The syntax .. will expand to as many values as it needs to be. Listing 18-24
shows how to use .. with a tuple.
Filename: src/main.rs
fn main() { let numbers = (2, 4, 8, 16, 32); match numbers { (first, .., last) => { println!("Some numbers: {first}, {last}"); } } }
Listing 18-24: Matching only the first and last values in a tuple and ignoring all other values
In this code, the first and last value are matched with first and last. The
.. will match and ignore everything in the middle.
However, using .. must be unambiguous. If it is unclear which values are
intended for matching and which should be ignored, Rust will give us an error.
Listing 18-25 shows an example of using .. ambiguously, so it will not
compile.
Filename: src/main.rs
fn main() {
let numbers = (2, 4, 8, 16, 32);
match numbers {
(.., second, ..) => {
println!("Some numbers: {}", second)
},
}
}
Listing 18-25: An attempt to use .. in an ambiguous
way
When we compile this example, we get this error:
$ cargo run
Compiling patterns v0.1.0 (file:///projects/patterns)
error: `..` can only be used once per tuple pattern
--> src/main.rs:5:22
|
5 | (.., second, ..) => {
| -- ^^ can only be used once per tuple pattern
| |
| previously used here
error: could not compile `patterns` due to previous error
It’s impossible for Rust to determine how many values in the tuple to ignore
before matching a value with second and then how many further values to
ignore thereafter. This code could mean that we want to ignore 2, bind
second to 4, and then ignore 8, 16, and 32; or that we want to ignore
2 and 4, bind second to 8, and then ignore 16 and 32; and so forth.
The variable name second doesn’t mean anything special to Rust, so we get a
compiler error because using .. in two places like this is ambiguous.
Extra Conditionals with Match Guards
A match guard is an additional if condition, specified after the pattern in
a match arm, that must also match for that arm to be chosen. Match guards are
useful for expressing more complex ideas than a pattern alone allows.
The condition can use variables created in the pattern. Listing 18-26 shows a
match where the first arm has the pattern Some(x) and also has a match
guard of if x % 2 == 0 (which will be true if the number is even).
fn main() { let num = Some(4); match num { Some(x) if x % 2 == 0 => println!("The number {} is even", x), Some(x) => println!("The number {} is odd", x), None => (), } }
Listing 18-26: Adding a match guard to a pattern
This example will print The number 4 is even. When num is compared to the
pattern in the first arm, it matches, because Some(4) matches Some(x). Then
the match guard checks whether the remainder of dividing x by 2 is equal to
0, and because it is, the first arm is selected.
If num had been Some(5) instead, the match guard in the first arm would
have been false because the remainder of 5 divided by 2 is 1, which is not
equal to 0. Rust would then go to the second arm, which would match because the
second arm doesn’t have a match guard and therefore matches any Some variant.
There is no way to express the if x % 2 == 0 condition within a pattern, so
the match guard gives us the ability to express this logic. The downside of
this additional expressiveness is that the compiler doesn't try to check for
exhaustiveness when match guard expressions are involved.
In Listing 18-11, we mentioned that we could use match guards to solve our
pattern-shadowing problem. Recall that we created a new variable inside the
pattern in the match expression instead of using the variable outside the
match. That new variable meant we couldn’t test against the value of the
outer variable. Listing 18-27 shows how we can use a match guard to fix this
problem.
Filename: src/main.rs
fn main() { let x = Some(5); let y = 10; match x { Some(50) => println!("Got 50"), Some(n) if n == y => println!("Matched, n = {n}"), _ => println!("Default case, x = {:?}", x), } println!("at the end: x = {:?}, y = {y}", x); }
Listing 18-27: Using a match guard to test for equality with an outer variable
This code will now print Default case, x = Some(5). The pattern in the second
match arm doesn’t introduce a new variable y that would shadow the outer y,
meaning we can use the outer y in the match guard. Instead of specifying the
pattern as Some(y), which would have shadowed the outer y, we specify
Some(n). This creates a new variable n that doesn’t shadow anything because
there is no n variable outside the match.
The match guard if n == y is not a pattern and therefore doesn’t introduce
new variables. This y is the outer y rather than a new shadowed y, and
we can look for a value that has the same value as the outer y by comparing
n to y.
You can also use the or operator | in a match guard to specify multiple
patterns; the match guard condition will apply to all the patterns. Listing
18-28 shows the precedence when combining a pattern that uses | with a match
guard. The important part of this example is that the if y match guard
applies to 4, 5, and 6, even though it might look like if y only
applies to 6.
fn main() { let x = 4; let y = false; match x { 4 | 5 | 6 if y => println!("yes"), _ => println!("no"), } }
Listing 18-28: Combining multiple patterns with a match guard
The match condition states that the arm only matches if the value of x is
equal to 4, 5, or 6 and if y is true. When this code runs, the
pattern of the first arm matches because x is 4, but the match guard if y
is false, so the first arm is not chosen. The code moves on to the second arm,
which does match, and this program prints no. The reason is that the if
condition applies to the whole pattern 4 | 5 | 6, not only to the last value
6. In other words, the precedence of a match guard in relation to a pattern
behaves like this:
(4 | 5 | 6) if y => ...
rather than this:
4 | 5 | (6 if y) => ...
After running the code, the precedence behavior is evident: if the match guard
were applied only to the final value in the list of values specified using the
| operator, the arm would have matched and the program would have printed
yes.
@ Bindings
The at operator @ lets us create a variable that holds a value at the same
time as we’re testing that value for a pattern match. In Listing 18-29, we want
to test that a Message::Hello id field is within the range 3..=7. We also
want to bind the value to the variable id_variable so we can use it in the
code associated with the arm. We could name this variable id, the same as the
field, but for this example we’ll use a different name.
fn main() { enum Message { Hello { id: i32 }, } let msg = Message::Hello { id: 5 }; match msg { Message::Hello { id: id_variable @ 3..=7, } => println!("Found an id in range: {}", id_variable), Message::Hello { id: 10..=12 } => { println!("Found an id in another range") } Message::Hello { id } => println!("Found some other id: {}", id), } }
Listing 18-29: Using @ to bind to a value in a pattern
while also testing it
This example will print Found an id in range: 5. By specifying id_variable @ before the range 3..=7, we’re capturing whatever value matched the range
while also testing that the value matched the range pattern.
In the second arm, where we only have a range specified in the pattern, the code
associated with the arm doesn’t have a variable that contains the actual value
of the id field. The id field’s value could have been 10, 11, or 12, but
the code that goes with that pattern doesn’t know which it is. The pattern code
isn’t able to use the value from the id field, because we haven’t saved the
id value in a variable.
In the last arm, where we’ve specified a variable without a range, we do have
the value available to use in the arm’s code in a variable named id. The
reason is that we’ve used the struct field shorthand syntax. But we haven’t
applied any test to the value in the id field in this arm, as we did with the
first two arms: any value would match this pattern.
Using @ lets us test a value and save it in a variable within one pattern.
Summary
Rust’s patterns are very useful in distinguishing between different kinds of
data. When used in match expressions, Rust ensures your patterns cover every
possible value, or your program won’t compile. Patterns in let statements and
function parameters make those constructs more useful, enabling the
destructuring of values into smaller parts at the same time as assigning to
variables. We can create simple or complex patterns to suit our needs.
Next, for the penultimate chapter of the book, we’ll look at some advanced aspects of a variety of Rust’s features.